Thousands of Palestinian protestors have been wounded or killed in the past few days deliberately by members of the Israeli Defense Force. With bullets. The IDF is shooting unarmed peaceful protestors.

Death toll in Gaza today rises to 52, over 2,400 wounded. At Shifa hospital a doctor who worked there for 17 years said he had never seen a day like this. pic.twitter.com/RZgDryzfUS— Sharif Kouddous (@sharifkouddous) May 14, 2018

Just to be clear: number of Israelis killed is zero. Number of Israelis wounded is zero. Number of rocket attacks that have happened during this protest is zero. This is pure bloodthirsty brutality.

Yes, the reason the IDF is shooting unarmed protestors in the head is that, after stealing Palestinian land, they built houses on it and apparently it's just oh so scary to be a thief armed with tanks, planes, smart bombs, and attack helicopters.

Saying that the Israelis opened fire on "unarmed" protestors is dishonest. They weren't unarmed, and they weren't peaceful. They were just less armed than the military force they were fighting against, which is true of all of their conflicts with Israel. The fact that they're under-armed and untrained doesn't make them peaceful, it just means they're bad at fighting.

The Israelis went way overboard though. There's absolutely no reason to have tanks and artillery there.

Saying that the Israelis opened fire on "unarmed" protestors is dishonest. They weren't unarmed, and they weren't peaceful. They were just less armed than the military force they were fighting against, which is true of all of their conflicts with Israel. The fact that they're under-armed and untrained doesn't make them peaceful, it just means they're bad at fighting.

The Israelis went way overboard though. There's absolutely no reason to have tanks and artillery there.

I have seen plenty of peaceful protester videos as well. I think it was around 35 000 protester and I wonder how many were actually armed. I have also heard from the Israelis that some people were trying to plant bombs at the fence and were shot by sniper, so there's that.

The Israelis had to know this riot was going to happen months ahead of time. Okay, there are reports of some protestors using bombs and rifles, so a little bit rowdier than your typical riot, but a riot nevertheless. Correct response would have been police in riot gear. Course, if they dont want this riot to happen they could have, you know, not encourage a country to move its embassy to Jerusalem and stir up a hornets nest for no good reason.

Israel has suffered 0 deaths and 0 wounded, while the Palestinian death toll is over 100 in the past few days with several thousand wounded by gunshots. It is patently absurd to think all or even most of them were combatants.

The protests are organised by Hamas. Hamas isn't in the business of peaceful. Hamas isn't in the business of live and let live.

It's easy to condemn the IDF, but the question is, how would you rather they police this? Standing there in your typical civil police wall is not feasible - you'd still end up with murders, and it's more likely to lead to losses on the Israeli side. You don't want to give people the chance to breach the fence, because tens of thousands of people breaching the fence at a borderline violent protest is going to lead to far more deaths all around.

People condemning them for their actions are people who will never have to live in their precarious position in the world.

The military has not opened any criminal investigations into their complaints, PCHR reported. As of December 31, ?responses received from the [military] stated that the cases were closed because the victim had violated the access restrictions, or because the use of lethal force by the Israeli military was within its rules of engagement,? the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported.

if you think that all 2000 Palestinians wounded by gunshots in one day were somehow violent and yet didn't manage to harm even one Israeli, I don't know what to tell you. We're talking about a military force which routinely kills people for being close to a fence. These people are near a fence, most of them peacefully. And they're getting shot. Not rocket science.

News sources also refer to unarmed people being gunned down. The citations are in the post directly above yours. It's a protest of many thousands of people; some had rocks and crappy improvised weaponry. Many did not, and were targeted with live rounds nonetheless.

Correction: these protests were endorsed by Hamas, but there is no clear evidence they were organised by Hamas. Further to that, these aren't Hamas operatives, they're ordinary Palestinians. Although the shit they've had to put up with the last few decades, I dare say a fair number will be inclined to violence.

It's easy to condemn the IDF,

Indeed it is. That's because it does so much that's easy to condemn.

In a way, I don't necessarily particularly blame the IDF. They are, after all, just the armed security forces of Israel doing their job. The fact is that Israel is busy appropriating land from the Palestinians, blockading and economically crippling them, etc. all the stuff we know by now, the IDF just do what they're told.

Israel's government was perfectly happy for the US embassy to move, knowing full well it would result in Palestinian protests, that protests would likely be tinged with violence, and knowing full well it would end in the IDF shooting a lot of Palestinians. What is a dead Palestinian to Israel (or more strictly, the Israel of Netanyahu and allies)? Really, just one less person they would otherwise need to dispossess later. The only motive they have to restrict casualties is international opinion... it shows.

if you ever wanted to know what it was like to watch the Globetrotters rout the Washington Generals I suggest this interview with @4noura where she repeatedly rejects the premise of the shallow questions CBS tosses her and offers a clear counter narrative https://t.co/HXlrmAlNtY— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) May 15, 2018

Ryotknife:Course, if they dont want this riot to happen they could have, you know, not encourage a country to move its embassy to Jerusalem and stir up a hornets nest for no good reason.

That's some odd logic you have there. Jerusalem is Israel's capital, it is no one's buiness but their own if they want other nations to have their embassies there, and no one but those nations if they want to place it there. That's the beginning and end of it. If they want to riot, well that's on them, and if it gets out of hand with rioters using deadly weapons and the response being the only one that security forces that manage to get through basic without spontaniously dying from a gust of air will have, well it's like American law enforcement with police: the more you look into it the less innocent the supposed victims are.

I wonder how much of Judea and Samaria will be annexed by the time they finally realize that Israel won't be driven back into the sea, they will never be the ones in a position of power to make the demands of a victor of pre-UN war, and that whatever deal they currently are being offered at that moment is as good as it will ever be, as each deal after, due to reflecting the reality on the ground and the fact the Green Line is not and never was the border, will be worst then the one before, just as they all have.

I don't know about the UK outside of the current obsession with banning knives due to London's problems, but out on this side of the pond improvised weapons, molotov cocktails, pipe bombs and rifles make those weilding them considered to be "armed". Is this a European thing or am I just crazy (I mean on this specific thing, not in general, we already know that answer)

Seanchaidh:Shooting unarmed people going about their business is POLICY.

If their business is threatening the security of a rather tetchy border area, then it's arguably warranted.

if you think that all 2000 Palestinians wounded by gunshots in one day were somehow violent and yet didn't manage to harm even one Israeli, I don't know what to tell you. We're talking about a military force which routinely kills people for being close to a fence. These people are near a fence, most of them peacefully. And they're getting shot. Not rocket science.

First, a man with a knife is not a violent man until he is within arms length. Doesn't mean he doesn't intend harm.

Second, these things aren't considered in isolation. Considering the amount of shit various groups in Gaza have tried at the border, it doesn't matter how honourable the intentions of the protesters, you have to assume there will be disruptive elements amongst them and therefore the best thing to do is to keep them all from the border. It goes back to mob mentality - if some idiot blows a hole in the fence and people start streaming through, far more people will end up getting killed.

What sort of idiot takes a baby to a protest which, let's be honest, was almost certain to turn violent? The baby was exposed to tear gas - that's irresponsible parenting more than any issue with the policing. Could have happened in most countries if someone was that stupid.

Without fucking artillery and tanks, and live ammunition used against unarmed people. As riots are policed in most civilised countries.

In most civilised countries, protestors wouldn't happily lynch the police given half a chance. Comparing the Gaza situation to the rest of the world is fundamentally flawed.

Agema:Although the shit they've had to put up with the last few decades, I dare say a fair number will be inclined to violence.

A large amount of what they put up with is self-inflicted. Why allow trade if every time you do groups import rockets to fire at Israel? Why allow free movement if people use it as a chance to stab Israeli's?

The situation is a clusterfuck, with elements of both sides making it worse. Pretending it isn't a clusterfuck is stupid and likely to get people killed.

Israel's government was perfectly happy for the US embassy to move, knowing full well it would result in Palestinian protests, that protests would likely be tinged with violence, and knowing full well it would end in the IDF shooting a lot of Palestinians. What is a dead Palestinian to Israel (or more strictly, the Israel of Netanyahu and allies)? Really, just one less person they would otherwise need to dispossess later. The only motive they have to restrict casualties is international opinion... it shows.

The long term plan for the region was the two state solution, with both having capitals in Jerusalem. Someone has to make the first move.

The problem is, people are too busy rushing to bash Trump to actually seize the opportunity to progress the situation. And no, I'm not saying his was the most diplomatic of moves. I'm saying it could be adapted into one.

Catnip1024:What sort of idiot takes a baby to a protest which, let's be honest, was almost certain to turn violent? The baby was exposed to tear gas - that's irresponsible parenting more than any issue with the policing. Could have happened in most countries if someone was that stupid.

No, it couldn't have happened in most countries. Protest is a right; the freedom to not be met with lethal force when you are not presenting any danger is a right. If your argument is that people should stay away and not protest even peacefully because they can expect lethal force to be in play, then that tells you more about how easily the authorities turn to lethal force, and it tells you a great deal more again about how much the rights of the citizenry have been infringed.

How little does one have to value the right to assembly, and the right to protest, in order to find no issue here? If some people act violently, then everybody in the country loses the right to protest, even peacefully, and their lives are forfeit? That's grotesque; I'd hope people value their basic liberties a great deal more than that.

Catnip1024:In most civilised countries, protestors wouldn't happily lynch the police given half a chance. Comparing the Gaza situation to the rest of the world is fundamentally flawed.

There was no lynching. There was no casualty on the other side at all. You cannot merely assume murderous intent of everybody present, and on that basis judge that all their lives are forfeit. That's so utterly morally bankrupt it should go without saying.

I don't know about the UK outside of the current obsession with banning knives due to London's problems, but out on this side of the pond improvised weapons, molotov cocktails, pipe bombs and rifles make those weilding them considered to be "armed". Is this a European thing or am I just crazy (I mean on this specific thing, not in general, we already know that answer)

We know that a large number of the people there did not have any weapons, improvised or otherwise. It's been documented by numerous news sources, and caught on film. There's a reason there is not a single casualty on the other side: they were not in any serious danger.

Zontar:Jerusalem is Israel's capital, it is no one's buiness but their own if they want other nations to have their embassies there, and no one but those nations if they want to place it there. That's the beginning and end of it.

Ha! We all wish that was true. No, Virginia, sadly the world doesn't work that way. The fact that the Palestinian care enough to riot for weeks, and not back off even after the first rioters were shot (several days ago) shows this won't get solved with a "Suck it!" attitude (they already are sucking bullets, and yet they don't seem to stop).

Silvanus:No, it couldn't have happened in most countries. Protest is a right; the freedom to not be met with lethal force when you are not presenting any danger is a right. If your argument is that people should stay away and not protest even peacefully because they can expect lethal force to be in play, then that tells you more about how easily the authorities turn to lethal force, and it tells you a great deal more again about how much the rights of the citizenry have been infringed.

How little does one have to value the right to assembly, and the right to protest, in order to find no issue here? If some people act violently, then everybody in the country loses the right to protest, even peacefully, and their lives are forfeit? That's grotesque; I'd hope people value their basic liberties a great deal more than that.

Yes, because it's not like the police use tear gas worldwide, and a baby being exposed to tear gas is more likely than most to die?

The Nicaragua example is particularly pertinent. It happened two weeks ago, with similar actions from elements of the protestors, and had a similar death toll. Yet no shits given by the people who are suddenly up in arms about Israel.

There was no lynching. There was no casualty on the other side at all. You cannot merely assume murderous intent of everybody present, and on that basis judge that all their lives are forfeit. That's so utterly morally bankrupt it should go without saying.

Either you are incredibly naiive, or you have paid no attention to the news from Israel for the last year or two. There have been numerous attempted and actual murders of Israeli citizens and servicemen / women. That is more than enough reasonable cause to keep people at arms length, particularly on what they are calling a "day of rage". A day of rage, for fucks sake. What sort of person would call a peaceful protest a day of rage?

What's morally bankrupt is expecting police to be happy to be put in extreme danger because you don't like the fact that some groups, in a mob, backed by the certain elements that they are, cannot be trusted to act peacefully. No force could feasibly control tens of thousands of people with truncheons and riot shields alone. They aren't fucking Spartans.

What's morally bankrupt is expecting police to be happy to be put in extreme danger because you don't like the fact that some groups, in a mob, backed by the certain elements that they are, cannot be trusted to act peacefully. No force could feasibly control tens of thousands of people with truncheons and riot shields alone. They aren't fucking Spartans.

So the only sensible thing to do is just light up literally thousands of people with bullets? Your logic isn't following dude.

What's morally bankrupt is expecting police to be happy to be put in extreme danger because you don't like the fact that some groups, in a mob, backed by the certain elements that they are, cannot be trusted to act peacefully. No force could feasibly control tens of thousands of people with truncheons and riot shields alone. They aren't fucking Spartans.

So the only sensible thing to do is just light up literally thousands of people with bullets? Your logic isn't following dude.

Website ate my post, so to recap the first line, that's not what I said, that's your leap of faith.

What do you really think would have happened had the fence been allowed to be breached? A nice peaceful protest in central Jerusalem?

What's morally bankrupt is expecting police to be happy to be put in extreme danger because you don't like the fact that some groups, in a mob, backed by the certain elements that they are, cannot be trusted to act peacefully. No force could feasibly control tens of thousands of people with truncheons and riot shields alone. They aren't fucking Spartans.

So the only sensible thing to do is just light up literally thousands of people with bullets? Your logic isn't following dude.

Website ate my post, so to recap the first line, that's not what I said, that's your leap of faith.

What do you really think would have happened had the fence been allowed to be breached? A nice peaceful protest in central Jerusalem?

See previous reply. My response to this is exactly the same as my response to your previous post.

The Nicaragua example is particularly pertinent. It happened two weeks ago, with similar actions from elements of the protestors, and had a similar death toll. Yet no shits given by the people who are suddenly up in arms about Israel.

Your first comparison, Paris, involves four people "lightly injured". There is no comparison.

Your second comparison, Nicaragua, has brought international condemnation, including from Amnesty and the US government. What is this intended to prove? That repression has reached similar levels elsewhere? No shit, Sherlock.

Catnip1024:Either you are incredibly naiive, or you have paid no attention to the news from Israel for the last year or two. There have been numerous attempted and actual murders of Israeli citizens and servicemen / women. That is more than enough reasonable cause to keep people at arms length, particularly on what they are calling a "day of rage". A day of rage, for fucks sake. What sort of person would call a peaceful protest a day of rage?

So... you're considering this a response to murders which took place outside of the protest? Can you not see the problem with this? The authorities are not supposed to use lethal force to dole out some kind of retribution for what other people did.

What's morally bankrupt is expecting police to be happy to be put in extreme danger because you don't like the fact that some groups, in a mob, backed by the certain elements that they are, cannot be trusted to act peacefully. No force could feasibly control tens of thousands of people with truncheons and riot shields alone. They aren't fucking Spartans.

Firstly: do you genuinely see no middle ground between truncheons and live ammunition, tanks, and artillery?

Secondly: riots are routinely policed without lethal force around the world. Yes, even ones with armed protesters.

Thirdly: even when violence does break out in a protest, this does not convey upon the authorities the right to kill whomever they like, armed or unarmed. I find it frankly stunning that anybody would think it does-- this is an incredible willingness to give up the freedom to assemble.

Silvanus:Your first comparison, Paris, involves four people "lightly injured". There is no comparison.

Your second comparison, Nicaragua, has brought international condemnation, including from Amnesty and the US government. What is this intended to prove? That repression has reached similar levels elsewhere? No shit, Sherlock.

This mini-thread is about your link to the sob story about the baby dying. The baby died of tear gas inhalation. You suggested this could not happen elsewhere. My point is, tear gas is used everywhere, and the only thing stopping it happening elsewhere is sensible parenting.

So... you're considering this a response to murders which took place outside of the protest? Can you not see the problem with this? The authorities are not supposed to use lethal force to dole out some kind of retribution for what other people did.

No. Not at all. You have a bizarre mindset on this.

If a group has a history of violence towards police, you do not treat them like any other protesting group. You can't. That's not retribution, that's common sense in light of the facts of the situation.

Firstly: do you genuinely see no middle ground between truncheons and live ammunition, tanks, and artillery?

afaik, nobody was shot by a tank. Nobody was shot at by artillery. These were things in reserve in case things got really out of hand. So the repeated bringing up of the subject does you no good. Live fire was limited to the odd sniper.

Secondly: riots are routinely policed without lethal force around the world. Yes, even ones with armed protesters.

Again, most riots do not believe the policing force are subhuman, and would not be happy to see them dead. Yes, that applies both ways. But that doesn't overlook the fact that this is a very different situation to your average riot.

Thirdly: even when violence does break out in a protest, this does not convey upon the authorities the right to kill whomever they like, armed or unarmed. I find it frankly stunning that anybody would think it does-- this is an incredible willingness to give up the freedom to assemble.

I don't believe in God given rights. Some people can't be trusted with the human rights assigned to them, particularly in certain contexts (like tens of thousands at a border, creating a smokescreen by burning tyres, as part of an event the name of which implies they wish to breach said border).

And don't pretend the right to assemble isn't routinely refused across the world.

if you think that all 2000 Palestinians wounded by gunshots in one day were somehow violent and yet didn't manage to harm even one Israeli, I don't know what to tell you. We're talking about a military force which routinely kills people for being close to a fence. These people are near a fence, most of them peacefully. And they're getting shot. Not rocket science.

First, a man with a knife is not a violent man until he is within arms length. Doesn't mean he doesn't intend harm.

So that means you have license to shoot people without knives for being kinda near and a bit miffed about living in an open-air prison that's been under blockade for years, and that the UN predicts will be unlivable by 2020.

This is an excuse for genocide. Make their situation unlivable, kill them when they object.

Dr. Tarek Loubani, who works at the London Health Sciences Centre, said he was shot as he was standing with a group of paramedics about 25 metres away from the protest area, wearing "hospital green top and bottom so I could both be identified as medical staff and a physician."

"We were standing well away from the main protest area," Loubani wrote. "The snipers in the three sniper outposts all had clear views of us."

There was no active shooting from the Israeli snipers immediately before or after and there were no protesters in the immediate vicinity, Loubani said.

"I heard a loud bang and found myself on the ground," Loubani said. "The bullet had entered my left proximal calf on the lateral side, exited on the medial side (moderate) and pierced my right knee superficial to the patella (minor). I yelled fuck."....About an hour later, one of those paramedics, Musa Abuhassanin, was shot and killed while attempting to rescue another person, Loubani said.

Abuhassanin, like most Palestinian paramedics, was wearing a fluorescent high visibility jacket when he was shot in the thorax, Loubani said.

Not really a mystery...maybe they shouldn't charge a border with rocks and molotovs, burning tires and kites with swastikas on. Any country in the world would protect its border with force and Israel has warned that it would not tolerate any attempt at an incursion. In particular, not from people who are sworn to its destruction and the death of its people. Anyone shot brought it upon themselves... well that's not strictly true, Hamas brought it upon them with promise of financial reward and martyrdom. Worldwide condemnation on their use of civilians as human shields has even come from Israel's critics.

The funniest bit is when they burn all the tires, then complain there's a tire shortage. And they complain about occupation, when Gaza is unoccupied. The Palestinians are putting on a show for the world because too much attention was put onto Syria and they wanted to be back in the spotlight. At this point, their "Day of Rage" could just be called "a day".